DYING PLANETS: We know what she did last summer!

In Wednesday morning's New York Times, Julie Turkewitz wrote a full-length news report about these intriguing questions. Her report appeared on the first page of the newspaper's National section.

Inevitably, Turkewitz quoted a Republican politician—Montana's Senator Daines—saying how crazy this idea was, and a Democratic politician—Colorado's Govewrnor Hickenlooper—who was refusing to comment.

She also quoted a Harvard professor saying the intriguing legal claim faces "an uphill battle." All in all, that's the sort of battle a river's unlikely to win, unless the river's allowed to sue gravity along with everyone else.

Go ahead! Treat yourself to Turkewitz's report! It exposes us to the sort of service we liberals often receive from our brightest assistant professors—silly claims which cause most people to shake their heads, for perfectly obvious reasons.

(Warning: Your lizard brain will tell you to search for a way to agree with this sh*t.)

As our assistant professors spout, the public comes to believe that we liberals are perhaps just a tiny bit kooky. Many of these issues today concern matters of gender or race, but in this one battle, the assistant professors are challenging the hidebound idea that rivers and lakes aren't persons.

Will this land turn out to be their land? Everything is possible! Along the way, we keep dividing our 330 million human persons into two disconnected tribes appalled by the views of The Others.

In the next few weeks, we hope to discuss some of the ways our assistant professors keep adding to this problem. For today, let's return to one of the ways our liberal journalists have doomed us, here on our dying liberal planet, to decades of puzzling defeat.

This past Tuesday, David Brooks wrote an excellent column about our society's two disconnected "planets." On that same page, Michelle Goldberg, in her debut column, wrote a somewhat similar piece, saying 1) that we have become two "countries" and 2) that the smaller of these countries tends to get the bulk of the political power under current arrangements.

We thought both columns were well worth reading. We also saw an ironic twist to Goldberg's new role at the Times. You see, we recall what she did last summer—rather, in the spring of the previous year.

It was April 24, 2015. The White House campaign had barely begun. The campaign of Donald J. Trump was still a gleam in The Big Crazy's eye.

(If only the Rockies had sued!)

On that morning, the New York Times published one of the longest and strangest "news reports" of the entire campaign. It was a 4400-word, slashing attack against Candidate Hillary Clinton, concerning her imagined role in an imagined Scary Uranium Deal.

The sprawling report was based on work by a right-wing nut—a right-wing nut who was being funded by Steve Bannon! The current president, Donald J. Trump, still refers to the stupid claims the New York Times published that day.

Why had the New York Times entered into an arrangement with that right-wing propagandist? We can't answer that. But the arrangement had now produced a blatantly bogus news report—and Goldberg joined with TV's Chris Hayes to call the report a "bombshell."

Hayes and Goldberg could have taken a different approach. They could have said, "There they go again," like President Reagan of old. They could have told viewers about decades of anti-Clinton jihad by the Times, dating to the invention of the Whitewater pseudo-scandal.

The fiery liberals didn't do that. Instead, they called the blatantly foolish report a "bombshell."

We can't tell you why the fiery liberals did that, but we've been discussing a larger pattern for many years. It's as we've always told you:

Liberal and mainstream journalistic careers run through the New York Times! For that reason, career liberals have never been willing to tell you about the long, strange jihad the paper has run against Clinton, Clinton and Gore.

The children have minded their p's and their q's every step of the way. Crazy news reports go unmentioned, or they even get praised. Decades of lunacy by Maureen Dowd couldn't be mentioned either.

Dearest darlings, use your heads! Such things simply aren't done!

(Careers also run through NBC News and its cable arms. That's why you've never seen a report about the years of crazy anti-Clinton, anti-Gore work by the baldly misogynistic Chris Matthews. Instead, he's sold to you as Rachel's dear friend and favorite political analyst! Rachel loved Greta's work too!)
.
The Times had published a crazy report—a report which started on page one and ran 4400 words.

All the others chose to ignore it; Hayes and Goldberg called it a bombshell. Trump still pimps its manifest bullshit today.

No one was willing to tell you the truth about that crazy, Bannon-fueled "news report." And much as we have long explained, Goldberg is now a columnist for that same New York Times!

Her first column was very strong. We hope she writes many more.

She doesn't hail from the 1950s-style "gender throwback" school of the silly, simpering Collins and the hiss-spitting Dowd. We hope she writes a lot of great columns. But one nagging thought will intrude:

We may know what she did that spring! We may know how she got there.

A final question: A final question goes to you:

Why did you hear from no one at all about that Bannon-funded report, the one to which Donald J. Trump still refers? No really—why did you see zero push-back from our big liberal stars as the Times helped Mr. Trump make his way to the White House?

Why did none of our heroes fight? At long last, defeated liberals, it's time we asked ourselves that.

Two planets diverged in a yellow wood. As has become appallingly clear, you can't run a country this way!

53 comments:

There were several analyses that took that uranium apart in considerable detail and showed that it was both inaccurate and misleading and essentially a smear job on the Clintons intended to diminish Clinton before her campaign (though she had not announced yet). It is garbage and anyone who looked at the details knows this.

The NY Times should never have published it. It remains to be answered why they did. This is certainly one of the ways Clinton was damaged by the right ahead of her campaign.

You are correct that Somerby doesn't bother refuting the article. He doesn't do much of that any more. But everyone already knows the article was garbage, so does he really have to do that here? This is a liberal website, after all.

Why did you hear no pushback? First, Somerby keeps referring obliquely to the report so it isn't clear what report he is talking about. Hard to refute a report when you don't know what he's talking about. Second, complex issues that are distorted to create a perception of wrongdoing are often very difficult to refute because each detail must be individually addressed and the public has little patience for details. That leaves you with a blanket statement that a report is incorrect without the appearance of backup. Media people don't like to do that. So they ignore the report instead.

Then Somerby says: "She also quoted a Harvard professor saying the intriguing legal claim faces "an uphill battle." All in all, that's the sort of battle a river's unlikely to win, unless the river's allowed to sue gravity along with everyone else."

His silliness over figurative language aside, the idea of treating a river as if it were a person is a legal fiction and it is no different than treating a corporation as if it were a person. Mocking this just displays a kind of stupidity and concreteness that makes Somerby look like an idiot. Legal fictions that treat things in odd ways exist in many forms and are commonplace in our legal system.

But this is also no joke. The protection of our environment is not just a matter of scenic beauty but of life and death to ecosystems that sustain our own lives. It won't be so funny when we run out of drinkable water or have more large wildfires to contend with. But hahahahahahaha Somerby is such a cut-up!!!

I don't know what that article said, but here's wikipedia, and I assume it's accurate:"In 2007 Uranium One acquired a controlling interest in UrAsia Energy,[4] a Canadian firm with headquarters in Vancouver, from Frank Giustra.[5] UrAsia Energy has interests in rich uranium operations in Kazakhstan.[6] UrAsia Energy's acquisition of its Kazakhstan uranium interests from Kazatomprom followed a trip to Almaty in 2005 by Giustra and former U.S. President Bill Clinton where they met with Nursultan Nazarbayev, the leader of Kazakhstan. Substantial contributions to the Clinton Foundation by Giustra followed.[5][7][8] The Podesta Group then lobbied on behalf of Uranium One.[9] The Podesta Group is run by Tony Podesta, the brother of John Podesta who was Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager."

Without engaging in any anti-Russian or anti-Kazakh hysteria, it's nevertheless quite obvious that The Clinton Crime Family played a role in that business transaction and was paid accordingly.

Yes, not exactly a "bombshell", more like business as usual, but still noteworthy, I'd say...

What Somerby was referring to was when in April 2015, the NYT published excerpts from “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”, by Breitbart editor at large Peter Schweizer. NYT did not fact check their article. But I did.SecState Clinton was not involved in the State Dept. decision.A Russian company bought interest of a Canadian company, Uranium One.The uranium could not be exported.The donor to the Clinton Foundation, Frank Guistra, had sold his interest in Uranium One three years before the donation, more than a year before Clinton became SecState. The Foundation did not disclose all information about its donations.

Mao, the fact remains that the chronology does not support the idea that the donation was for services rendered. First, how could anyone know at the time the donation was made that Clinton would become Sec of State? Second, Clinton had no involvement in anything to do with approving the sale. Hillary had no connection with it either. Nor are there any emails or letters or contacts backing up the claim that they may have tried to influence anyone involved in it. The whole accusation makes no sense.

There is a connection between Bill Clinton and Giustra that resulted in contributions to the foundation, but there is no closing of the loop to show that any favors were possible, much less received as a result of that connection.

In 2005, how would anyone know that Hillary would run for president, that she would lose, that she would subsequently be offered Sec or State by Obama, that she would accept that position? But in that position, she had no influence over any deal that was made, sat on no committees, attended no meetings, involved with that deal. And the loose connection between Bill Clinton and Giustra was irrelevant because Giustra himself was out of the picture in 2007, well before the transfer.

So this was a nothingburger when the article appeared and the NY Times should have seen that and NOT helped the right attack Hillary in the months before she became a declared candidate. It was dirty. And it makes you ask why the NY Times would participate in something like that. The subsequent imbalance in media exposure between Trump and Clinton and the NY Times unrelenting focus on similar non-scandals helped defeat Clinton. One can only assume that was their goal.

It's very easy to infer what happened: WC met Nazarbayev and convinced him to approve the sale of Kazatomprom to Giustra, in exchange to some HC services (as a senator). Giustra then paid $130 million to The Family.

Bill Clinton can be a persuasive guy, but no one was paying him 130 million (through his foundation, from which the Clintons received no money at all) to intervene in a Russian administrative matter. Then you say Hillary got some sort of service as senator -- what exactly? And this whole payoff took place years later, when Guistra was no longer connected with the original company. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Use of loaded language, such as "The Family", doesn't provide any substance if the details just don't justify concluding that anything wrong was done.

You don't accuse a former President of this kind of thing based on "inference" which in your case means you have no basis for maligning a highly regarded leader of our country.

Anon 4:33, I appreciate what you're doing but you know you're just playing this troll's game. There is no truth or sincerity in their argument, they just want us to chase their wild geese trying to prove a negative. It's a game they play that can never end. This is how they perpetuate the myth that there must be something wrong with Secretary Clinton. This is how they damaged her badly in the campaign and actually persuaded supposed intelligent progressives to attack her in the same manner.

Trump asserted in September 2015 that he would cut taxes for the middle class, “but for the hedge fund guys, they’re going to be paying up.” This is less in reference to income tax rates than capital gains tax loopholes. Trump promised several times to eliminate this loophole, which allows financial managers to pay taxes on their income at the capital gains tax rate, which is lower, instead of the income tax rate. He said in Iowa in 2015 that he’d take out the loophole, “and let people making hundreds of millions of dollars pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax.”

**************“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said in an interview with The Washington Post. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” *****************

“Together we’re going to deliver real change that once again puts Americans first,” Trump said at an October rally in Florida. “That begins with immediately repealing and replacing the disaster known as Obamacare…You’re going to have such great health care, at a tiny fraction of the cost—and it’s going to be so easy.”*****************We will immediately repeal and replace ObamaCare - and nobody can do that like me. We will save $'s and have much better healthcare!*************“We will [repeal and replace Obamacare], and we will do it very, very quickly,” Trump said during the final week of the campaign. “It is a catastrophe.”***********On the campaign trail, one of Donald Trump’s most oft-repeated promises was that he would repeal the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, and replace it with “something terrific.” This mythical, magical, secret plan was largely left to the imagination of voters, but he did make a few claims about what it would include.***********“I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

Pressed for specifics, he explained that “people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.”********************“You will end up with great health care for a fraction of the price and that will take place immediately after we go in. Immediately! Fast! Quick!” he told supporters at a Las Vegas rally that month.*******

Yesterday, president clusterfuck pussygrabber flimflam man, congratulated himself on what a great job he's doing in Puerto Rico, and then proceed to fly to his NJ country club for a weekend of golf. II believe this is the 70th day he will be charging US Secret Service to ride his golf cart.

Obamacare is a catastrophe. It's worse than catastrophe; it's a malicious attempt to resuscitate and prolong the agony of a fraudulent for-profit system of 'medical care' (what a joke), that should've collapsed a long time ago.

"If the rich were taxed, what do you expect would've happened?"Umm...news flash...the rich ARE taxed in this country. Are they in yours?

"What do you get, that's paid by federal income taxes? "Gee, I dunno, highways, consumer protection, food and drug safety, disease prevention, environmental protection, disaster relief, national defense, a legal system , ...but trolls already know this...Anarchy was never a workable framework. Our founding fathers created a government when they split from England, not an atavistic return to nature. Have you read the Constitution?"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."What does your Constitution say, Comrade?

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responds to criticism of its decision to prohibit HHS regional staff from attending marketplace open enrollment events by lashing out with false claims that the ACA has failed and is harming people.

August 31

Just two months before the start of open enrollment, the Trump Administration announces it will slash funding for marketplace outreach (by at least 90 percent) and consumer enrollment assistance through the navigator programs (by about 40 percent). Without a robust awareness campaign, many people will be unaware of the availability of affordable coverage options and will remain uninsured. Bipartisan efforts to stabilize the marketplaces are developing, but the Administration’s cuts will make that goal far more challenging.

July 29

After Senate Republicans fail to pass a bill to repeal or replace the ACA, President Trump takes to Twitter to threaten that he will stop making CSR payments to insurers. Trump falsely calls these payments a “bailout.” Actually, the ACA requires the federal government to make these payments to compensate insurers for reducing deductibles and copayments for low- and moderate-income marketplace enrollees. Ending the payments would hike premiums in the individual market for many consumers, raise federal marketplace costs, and likely cause some insurers to withdraw from the marketplaces. The renewed threat comes just two weeks before the deadline for insurers to finalize their premium rates for 2018 marketplace plans.

"Obamacare is a catastrophe. It's worse than catastrophe; it's a malicious attempt to resuscitate and prolong the agony of a fraudulent for-profit system of 'medical care' (what a joke), that should've collapsed a long time ago.

"It says that anyone spelling 'constitution' with capital C is, most likely, a pompous and useless concern troll"I didn't think you'd actually read the document. It 's capitalized in the original document, you dumb fuck. So talk to T. Jefferson and J. Madison about it...if you know who they were/are.

The Court of Trump the Unready racks up millions jetting around at taxpayer expense, "lock-'em-up" level email malfeasance abounds - we know all of this thanks to the msm, i.e. that broken planet sending us postcards from the ledge. But, hey, why not mock those kooky liberals trying to save the planet. Aren't we just pathetic? Now I think I'll go read an article about fashion and think up ways to mock conservatives while I pledge allegiance to Leader LeBron and Co-Leader Kathy Griffin.

(((Goldberg))) has chutzpah, I'll give her that. Anyhow, yes, there are two "Americas." The first America, which I'll call "America" consists of the native population that existed in 1960 and their ancestors. It's 90% white and voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

Your second "America" I'll call "the shtetl of Satan." It consists of jews, the masses of non-white immigrants either let into the country under the Hart-(((Cellar))) act of 1965 or the masses of illegal immigrants who poured over our Southern border over the last handful of decades. And the surly blacks who jews have used as a club against WASP Americans (and some portion of resentful East coast Catholics).

She says "we" didn't vote for Trump, because this second "America" is larger. But here's the thing: the real America never voted for allowing this second "America" into the fucking country in the first place. This second "America" is fundamentally incompatible with the actual America. They hate its people, they hate its traditions, they hate its heroes. In short, the entire raison d'etre of this second "America" is to destroy and replace the real America.

And it was working! Boy howdy, it was working. But then Trump came a long and the jews panicked and turned the burner to high, and the frog jumped out of the pot. Awakened from a soma-induced slumber, the real America is looking at the ersatz America, and it's not much liking what it's seeing.

Actually, the real America did vote on all of the policies described. If the 2nd America was 10% that isn't enough to enact anything without a majority of real Americans agreeing. But maybe the small % of Americans who call Jews ugly names cannot do math. It would explain a lot about their fears of being outnumbered.

Those worried about the Clinton "crime family" should probably worry a bit more about the Trump crime family, since they seem to be the ones in power, at least they still were as of a few minutes ago. And Trump's capo di tutti capi Putin, who maintains a truly frightening crime syndicate.

"Why did none of our heroes fight? At long last, defeated liberals, it's time we asked ourselves that. Two planets diverged in a yellow wood. As has become appallingly clear, you can't run a country this way!"